Everyone Gets the Limbaugh Theorem as the IRS Scandal Unfolds, But They're Missing the Purpose of Obama's Strategic Detachment

RUSH: Look, I don't mean to make this personal. I really don't. You people in this audience that have been here for years and years understand that, for example, when I say that this past weekend, today, all of last week, the Limbaugh Theorem has been in full display, I don't mean to make that about me. Remember what we're about here.

We are about persuading people. We are about creating the largest group of informed, educated people participating in our process as possible. And, as such, it is I who try various ways to come up with ways to explain things to people that will convince or persuade them and also do so in a way that will help them then explain to other people, and we create a cascade. The Limbaugh Theorem was not about me giving me credit for something. It was simply sharing with you when the light went off. And just to restate it again.

The reason I'm doing this is I had a bunch of e-mails from friends over the weekend who are in the media, who have never heard of the Limbaugh Theorem, alerting me, sending me, "Can you believe how Obama's getting away with all this? Like he had nothing to do with the IRS, and he had nothing to do with what went on at the Department of Justice and the AP," and I politely -- I'll tell you what I did. I went to the website, Rush 24/7, and I got all of the relevant transcripts from the archives of this program going back to February, the Limbaugh Theorem, and I fired the stuff out. I mean, I buried 'em with data, and I said, "Look, I finally figured this out." Everybody is coming to it now, but they still haven't closed the loop on what it means.

I'm sure you've seen this. Where everybody is now, "Wow." There are even satirical members of the media doing parody and satire on Obama. For example, I saw where the Borowitz report or something, and it was a satire on Obama saying, "Well, you know, I didn't know this thing was going on at the IRS. I found out about it when the press told me." It was a takeoff on how Obama is literally not attached to anything in his administration. He's not attached to his agenda. He's not attached to these scandals. He's not attached to anything. But what they're missing is that this has been going on since day one in 2009, and what they're missing is the purpose of it. They all acknowledge, for example, that Obama's on a perpetual campaign.

But it stops there. They're all remarking to me, "Boy, isn't it amazing how this Obama guy, he doesn't know anything about what's going on and he's a smart guy." Yeah, yeah, but do you know why all this is happening, is the point? And the answer is right here. "Obama Approval Holding Steady at 55%." Now, it's a CNN poll and we have to treat this in a guarded way. "President Barack Obama's job approval rating is holding steady, despite a trifecta of scandals. CNN's Candy Crowley said on State of the Union Sunday that 53 percent of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing, according to a new CNN/ORC poll. His approval is virtually unchanged from a poll the network did before the three scandals that have put the administration on the defensive." And the three scandals, of course, are the IRS probing the Tea Party, Republican criticism of Benghazi and Libya and the AP phone records.

The approval rating hasn't changed. Now, you poll the American people, they're all opposed to this. They don't attach Obama to it. There's a reason. It's not just something to marvel at and insult voters over. There is a studied, purposeful reason why Obama is never going to be seen as governing, and it is precisely within the minds of low-information voters to make sure he's never seen as responsible for any of this. It is purposeful. It's not just some anomaly that happened that everybody can scratch their heads at or laugh at. The Limbaugh Theorem attempts to explain why the administration is doing this and how it is working and how it is succeeding.

For example, here is the kind of reporting that we're getting from our so-called news media. This is the Associated Pres: "Obama Agenda Marches on Despite Controversies."

Of course it does. "Despite Democratic fears, predictions of the demise of President Barack Obama's agenda appear exaggerated after a week of cascading controversies, political triage by the administration and party leaders in Congress and lack of evidence to date of wrongdoing close to the Oval Office."

Now, that's not journalism. That's cheerleading. They're all excited. This is the AP excited that none of this is attaching itself to Obama. This is the AP thrilled to be able to report that the agenda marches on despite the controversies, despite fears in the Democrat Party, despite predictions of the demise of Obama's agenda, all that's exaggerated after a week of cascading controversies. Remember, these are the same people, folks, who constantly tell us not to jump to conclusions. But now the news media are proclaiming the scandals are all behind us now and that Obama's emerged unscathed and that his wonderful agenda marches on. There it is right there in the AP. And, unfortunately, that last part about his agenda marching on is true. But that's only because it takes two to tango.

Scandals never stop an administration unless the media wants them to stop an administration, which means that no scandal is ever gonna stop Obama. I can remember people here last week, "Rush, this IRS thing, this is really gonna get Obama." No, it's not. It's not gonna get Obama. We continue to learn that the regime was totally behind it. We have learned that Obama met with the leader of the union that IRS employees belong to, a woman at the White House. It was the next day that the Tea Party began being targeted. I mean, it's highly circumstantial, but it's certainly not proof, but all these stories that Obama didn't know -- there's another story -- everybody's trying to figure out one thing here on this IRS story. It's being reported that, I think it was Lois Lerner revealed the details of the scandal during Q&A at a congressional hearing. That's how we first learned of this, by the way, if you've forgotten, that's it.

The IRS announced it at a congressional hearing. We have since found out that the whole thing was scripted, that the member of Congress who asked her the question was given the question specifically so that she could answer it. This happened a day or two before the inspector general report came out. And here's the answer to the question. The reason why that happened is so that it would appear -- and again, everything is targeted to low-information voters, folks. That's all that matters to the regime, Obama's voters. That's where those polling numbers come from and that's what all this stuff is targeted to. So the purpose here was to have it understood, have no known, have it indisputably appear that the IRS announced the scandals, the IRS discovered what these rogue employees were doing, and they got the news out before the inspector general's report.

If the general's report had been the first thing anybody heard about this, then whatever the IRS says after that would appear to be cover-up. But the way this happened, with a scripted, structured Q&A in a congressional hearing, the IRS gets the credit for revealing the details.

(interruption)

Okay, that's right, it was not a congressional hearing. It was a Bar Association tax conference. It was a Q&A, Lois Lerner at an American Bar Association tax convention. And the question that she got was staged. She knew it was coming. She had the answer. The reason for this is so that they can say and it appears the IRS discovered the dirt in its own shop and announced it and then immediately began to take steps to fix it. Now, the truth of the matter is that this was a purposefully structured, might say brilliantly conceived and almost flawlessly executed attempt to tamp down fundraising, donations, and, in fact, voter interest among the Tea Party. The IRS delayed the process for granting tax-exempt status to a whole bunch of Tea Party organizations -- over 30 of them -- that delayed them in their campaign efforts and their fundraising efforts.

It also sent some of them home, to hell with it. They just said, "I'm not putting up with this," and they stopped. We had a couple stories from women who were trying to start Tea Party foundations, "To heck with it, it's not worth the hassle." And remember, we know that Obama got a lot fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, but so did Romney get many fewer votes, millions fewer than McCain got. I think now we're starting to see exactly what the IRS targeting the Tea Party meant. It actually suppressed the conservative vote. It suppressed Tea Party fundraising. The Tea Party was the sole reason for the 2010 midterms. That's when the IRS got in gear, made sure that wasn't gonna happen in 2012, and they did.

In all of this, Obama's over there unattached to it. In all of this, Obama's sitting there saying, "We're gonna get to the bottom of this." Obama's over there firing, quote, unquote, the acting head honcho when he didn't get fired, he was leaving anyway. It was just made to look like drastic action was taking place. That's just the IRS scandal. Yeah, just to be clear, Lois Lerner made her admission, quote, unquote, at an American Bar Association meeting. She got a lawyer friend to ask her the question in the Q&A. The bar meeting was May the 10th. The IG report, the IRS inspector general report came out on May 13th. They were hell-bent. They knew what the IG report was gonna say 'cause they knew what was going on in there.

They knew how the Tea Party vote was suppressed. They knew Tea Party fundraising was being suppressed. They knew that Tea Party enthusiasm, the full force of the federal government was being brought down on them. They were being told to furnish the details and the contents of prayers in the case of a religious organization seeking tax-exempt status. Now, the news media right now, folks, as in full praetorian guard mode. Both the Washington Post and New York Times had stories over the weekend reporting that the IRS's suppression of the Tea Party, it couldn'ta been political. Oh, no. That's just a freak, kook extremist. The IRS suppressing the Tea Party? Could not have been political, say the Washington Post and the New York Times, because all the workers at the tax exemption office in Cincinnati say they aren't political.

That's right. The Washington Post and New York Times found some of the employees there, "Oh, no, no, we're just overworked." I tell you where this is gonna go. You let some time pass and what's gonna happen is, say six months, eight months, a year from now at a congressional hearing having to do with something totally unrelated, somebody's gonna say, "You know what, the IRS needs more money, needs more staff. The reason why this unfortunate thing happened with the Tea Party is because they're understaffed. There just aren't enough people to handle these applications. Need a bigger budget and need more people." Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's exactly right.

That's how this could potentially backfire. The IRS could end up getting bigger. Which is not what we want. But that could be, when nobody's looking a few months from now, the supposed solution to this. It was just a coincidence, you see, and general incompetence that kept 500 conservative organizations from being granted tax-exempt status for more than 27 months. By the way, during that entire period, every liberal group sailed through. You know, there's another question I have where I think the regime's dropped the ball. If they were really on their -- and they are on their game -- this is just a side illustration. But if the in the middle of all this if some left-wing group of people had popped up and said, "We were denied or tax-exempt status, too, the IRS was asking us all kinds of questions." Can you imagine how that could have been played in the media?

"It wasn't just conservative Tea Party groups. The National Association of Bald Condors over here, they didn't get their tax-exempt status, either." If the regime had come up with some left-wing organization also denied, but that didn't happen. Every left-wing group seeking tax-exempt status got it. Every one. Over 500 Tea Party groups did not, in a 27-month period. And Obama had nothing to do with it, folks, and the employees in Cincinnati are not political. Washington Post, New York Times, trying to convince us these IRS workers weren't political, just incompetent. And a member of Congress said, "You know, that's really cool. Let a taxpayer try saying he didn't know what he was doing when you guys come calling and see how that works for you. But you guys come before our committee and you want to say this happened because you're incompetent?" The gallery in the House stood up and cheered when that guy, forget his name, top of my head.

So when Obama says there's no "there" there, as far as the media's concerned, he's right. As far as the Limbaugh Theorem, he's right, there's no "there" there, no matter what Obama does. No matter what he does, it will never be reported he did it. In fact, what will be reported is -- in this case -- Obama's trying to fix it! Like the deficit, like the health care problems, like the national debt, he's trying to fix it, 'cause these powerful forces are arrayed against him.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I got some audio sound bites here. I'm gonna demonstrate exactly what I'm talking about with the Limbaugh Theorem. Snerdley just told me that I've ruined his day. During the entire monologue, the opening monologue of the program, I've looked on the other side of the glass and Snerdley's in there with his mouth sort of open and a facial expression that was either "Oh, no," as in depressed hearing what I'm hearing, or he thinks I'm off my rocker. So I asked him about it during the break. And he said, "Well, I gotta tell you, I'm spending the whole weekend, I'm watching the Sunday shows, I'm watching this stuff, and I'm thinking finally something's gonna stick. The Democrats are nervous. They're running for the hills. They're scared, and then you come along and in two minutes you dispel the whole notion."

And I said, "Well, I could be wrong."

He said, "You're never wrong."

I said, "I know. But I still could be. I could have this wrong." Maybe the low-information voters are getting ticked off. Maybe they're holding Obama accountable, but I don't see it. I don't see it happening now, and I don't see it happening in the future.

Let's go back for a second to the CNN poll. Now admittedly, it's CNN. I'm not gonna make the mistake again that I made in the 2012 election. I figured that those preelection polls in 2012 were wrong because they weren't factoring the 2010 midterm election turnout, and I was wrong about that, and I didn't know that the IRS was suppressing Tea Party fundraising and enthusiasm. There's a lot we didn't know. I mean, I think it's a legitimate question to ask, if the IRS had not suppressed the Tea Party the ways they did, would Romney have won? Not could have, would he have? Is this election fraudulent? It's a legitimate question because of what the IRS did. It's also legitimate based on Benghazi, but that's another thing. And I still submit Benghazi, just in terms of substance, is far worse as a scandal than the IRS thing is.

But let's go back to these CNN polls for just a second. I have the same poll reported on in two consecutive days. The first day was yesterday. "President Barack Obama's job approval rating is holding steady, despite a trifecta of scandals. CNN's Candy Crowley said on State of the Union Sunday that 53 percent of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing, according to a new CNN/ORC poll. His approval is virtually unchanged from a poll the network did before the three scandals that have put the administration on the defensive. ... Obama senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer told Crowley that the 'American people have great faith in the president.'" And they do! They think he's trying to fix all of this.

Folks, look, you are the exact opposite of low-information voters, and it may be hard to understand when I say they think Obama's trying to fix it, but they do. They're emotionally invested in the guy, and nothing is going to change that. Something unforeseen would have to happen to change that. I just don't see this as being that. Now, here's the next day. The Weekly Standard: "A new poll from CNN demonstrates that Americans say the continuing investigations into two scandals that have arisen in the last week are important."

Here we go again. The respondents in the CNN poll give Obama a 53% approval rating while at the same time say that these scandals are important, and that number is rising. "According to the poll, 55 percent of those polled say the questions about the administration's conflicting stories on the cause of the September 11 attacks on the American diplomatic post in Benghazi are 'very important,' with another 29 percent saying they are 'somewhat important.' And on the issue of the IRS targeting conservative groups for increased scrutiny, 55 percent said the it was 'very important' and another 30 percent said it was 'somewhat important.'"

And get this. "Fifty-nine percent now say that the U.S government could have prevented the attack in Benghazi, up 11 points from last November." It was 48, now it's 59% say the government could have prevented the attack. Only 37% say congressional Republicans are overreacting. It's the same with the IRS controversy. Fifty-four percent say the GOP and Congress has not overplayed its hand. Yet Obama's approval is at 53%, unchanged, and it's the same thing in Gallup.

So it's the same anomaly that I saw the New York Times back in February that got me going on all this. That poll back in February was that by vast majorities, 55 to 58, in some places 60% people opposed Obama's agenda and didn't like the direction the country was going, but loved him. I said, "Wait a minute, they don't approve of the agenda, and they don't like the direction country's going, but they don't attach Obama to any of it." That's what people are not connecting. How that's happening. And it's the permanent campaign with Obama running around, himself appearing opposed to what's happening. The truthful way to characterize that is Obama is running around opposed to his own agenda. He, too, opposes his agenda and is trying to fix it. And that's how people see it.

They don't see him as governing. They don't see him as ultimately responsible. That's why we've gotten the stories: Obama detached, Obama a passerby, Obama a bystander. I mean, everybody's figured out what's happening now and they haven't closed the loop, as have I, your beloved host, to explain why. Now, let's go to the audio sound bites, shall we? Dan Pfeiffer, White House senior advisor. First on Slay the Nation with Bob Schieffer. Bob Schieffer is starting to get a little put out with these guys. He doesn't want to compare any of this to Watergate, but he's very alarmed the way the White House is handling this. He said to Pfeiffer, "Okay, yesterday the White House leaks the story to the New York Times, it says the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, has told his staff not to spend any more than 10% of their time on these issues. Does that mean you don't take any of this seriously, Mr. Pfeiffer?"

PFEIFFER: The point that our chief of staff is making is that this is the Republican playbook here which is try, when they don't have a positive agenda, try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings and false allegations. We're not going to let that distract us and the president from actually doing the people's work and fighting for the middle class.

SCHIEFFER: You know, I don’t want to compare this in any way to Watergate. I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren't born then I would guess, but I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said, "These are all second-rate things. We don't have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people's business." You’re taking exactly the same line that they did.

RUSH: But it's not Watergate. Bob to had to make everybody sure it's not Watergate (imitating Schieffer), "I'm not saying it's Watergate. Nothing could ever be Watergate because that's a Republican thing, can never be Watergate. But you guys are starting to alarm me." Did you notice Pfeiffer, Obama's working hard for the middle class. Reminds me of Bill Clinton (imitating Clinton) "I didn't have sex with that woman, not a single time, never. Now, I gotta get back to work with the American people." He's wagging that crooked finger and walks out of the room. And here in the midst the IRS, Benghazi, and the media spying -- And, by the way, this media spying story is much more than AP.

Now it's encompassed James Rosen of Fox News, and there's a big story in the Daily Caller. We have linked to this at RushLimbaugh.com. Jeff Poor at the Daily Caller chronicles all of the Obama administration efforts targeting the media, and I'm mentioned in that story two or three times, all the accounts, all the attempts that Obama has made to try to come after me.

Anyway, you hear Pfeiffer (paraphrasing), "Look, our chief of staff is out there saying the Republicans are making all this up. I mean, the Republicans don't have a positive agenda, so they're bringing up all this IRS stuff, and they're bringing up Benghazi, and we're just not gonna talk about it, Bob, 'cause we got more important things to do. We gotta keep working for the middle class. We don't have time to talk about this stuff." And Schieffer, "Well, gee whiz, you know, I'm not saying it's Watergate, but my God that's exactly what Nixon said, 'We don't have time for this. You guys are barking up the wrong tree. We're gonna work on the people's business, second-rate stuff going on."

You know, the next thing we're gonna hear from Dan Pfeiffer is no investigation ever fed a hungry child. That's a line Clinton used against Bob Dole in a debate in the 1996 campaign. Dole's out there saying, "Where's the outrage?" over Clinton's lack of morality and all this. Clinton said, "No attack ever fed a hungry child." So after Schieffer told Pfeiffer that, "You know, you guys are playing this exactly like Nixon did in Watergate," he kept going.

SCHIEFFER: But, Mr. Pfeiffer, and I don't mean to be argumentative here but the president is in charge of the executive branch of the government. It's my -- I'll just make this as an assertion. When the executive branch does things right, there doesn't seem to be any hesitancy of the White House to take credit for that. When Osama Bin Laden was killed, the president didn't waste any time getting out there and telling people about it.

RUSH: Here you have it, right out in front of his eyes here. The Limbaugh Theorem is what Schieffer's talking about, but he's not heard of the Limbaugh Theorem so he doesn't know what it is, but he knows what it is, he just doesn't know that I have concocted that name for it with an in-depth explanation. But you notice how timid he is? (imitating Schieffer) "Look, you know, Mr. Pfeiffer, I don't mean to be argumentative ..." You ever remember him treating a Republican that way? I don't remember.

"I don't mean to be argumentative. Please forgive me, Mr. Pfeiffer, please. Yeah, I got my job here, and I've gotta do my job, and I've gotta ask you to please, please -- I'm just gonna make, I tell you what, I won't even ask. I'll just make an assertion. When the economy is going great guns, you guys take the credit. When Osama Bin Laden's killed, you guys don't waste any time taking credit for it, but on this other stuff you guys are nowhere to be found." So Schieffer and a lot of these people, they're -- how would you say -- they're gliding around, circling the truth here. They're afraid to head to the bull's-eye on this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, back to the audio sound bites. Bob Schieffer is still telling Dan Pfeiffer that he really can't believe the take that Pfeiffer brought to his show yesterday. Here's the next example of it...

SCHIEFFER: But with all of these things, when these things happen, you seem to send out officials, many times, who don't even seem to know, uh, what has happened. And I use as an example of that Susan Rice, who had no connection whatsoever to the events that took place in Benghazi. And yet she was sent out, appeared on this broadcast and other Sunday broadcasts -- five days after it happens. And I'm not here to get in an argument with you about who changed which word in the talking points and all that. The bottom line is: What she told the American people that day bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where, uh, four Americans were killed.

RUSH: Now, what's interesting about this is Schieffer said (summarized), "Look, I don't want to get in an argument with you here about who changed what." Why not, Bob? That's the story! Bob's sitting here telling Pfeiffer, "Look, I don't understand the way you guys are playing this. I don't understand. Nobody knows anything! Obama didn't know anything -- and you're telling me that people that I can't talk to are coming up with these explanations. I don't want to argue with you about it," of course not, "because you're a fellow Democrat and there's no way I'm gonna use my show here to embarrass you guys."

Here's the last bite we have with Schieffer. I think he sees what's going on here; he doesn't like it.

SCHIEFFER: But what I'm saying to you is: That was just PR. That was just a PR plan, to send out somebody who didn't know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn't the secretary of state come and tell us what they knew? And if you knew nothing, uh, say, "We don't know yet." Why didn't the White House chief of staff come out? I mean, I would -- and I mean this as no disrespect to you. Why are you here today? Why isn't the White House chief of staff here to tell us what happened?

RUSH: Can you imagine watching this show yesterday and hearing all of this? But that, again, folks (not to overdo it by any stretch), is the Limbaugh Theorem. Nobody is responsible for anything, and all Schieffer's concerned about is: Why aren't you guys doing it a different way?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Look, Dan Pfeiffer... I don't know if we've got this in the audio sound bites. I thought we did, but regardless. Dan Pfeiffer told another Sunday morning show that none of this is relevant anyway. None of this matters. The law's not relevant. The law is not relevant, Pfeiffer said. So Schieffer didn't get that, somebody else did.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Dan Pfeiffer, White House communications director, spokesman, when Carney needs some time in the sandbox. They sent Pfeiffer out, and he said that two things yesterday are irrelevant. One thing he said that is irrelevant is where Obama was while Benghazi was going down. It's irrelevant. It's irrelevant where the president was. See, people are finally starting to ask that. I think that happens to be question numero uno. Where the hell was he? Five o'clock, with Hillary, a little bit later with Panetta, he tells 'em (paraphrasing), "You guys handle it, do whatever you need," and he vanishes. Nobody knows where. Chris Wallace asked him about it yesterday on Fox News Sunday.

WALLACE: But, with due respect, you didn't answer my question. What did the president do that night?

PFEIFFER: He was kept -- he -- he was in constant touch that night with his national security team and kept up-to-date with the events as they were happening.

WALLACE: When you say his national security team, he didn't talk to the secretary of state except for the one time when the first attack was over. He didn't talk to the secretary of defense. He didn't talk to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Who was he talking to?

PFEIFFER: He was talking to his national security staff, his National Security Council, the people who keep him up-to-date about these things as they happen.

WALLACE: He was in the Situation Room?

PFEIFFER: He was kept up-to-date throughout the day.

WALLACE: Do you not know whether he was in the Situation --

PFEIFFER: I don't remember what room the president was in on that night. That's a largely irrelevant fact.

RUSH: See? And the low-information voters who are not watching this show 'cause they don't know that it's on the air, will then hear about this and say, "Yeah, it doesn't matter where he was, what do you mean, that kinda nitpick, what's it matter where Obama was? I mean, he coulda been anywhere. He coulda still been in charge." Oh, no, no, no, no. It matters where he was. It really matters where he was. 'Cause you heard Chris Wallace (paraphrasing): "He was not in touch with any of the principals."

"Well, no, his National Security Council, national security, briefed him the whole day."

"Well, where was he?"

"It doesn't matter. He was talking to all the important people keeping him briefed, national security staff, National Security Council, people keeping him up-to-date about briefings as they happen."

"Was he in the Situation Room?"

"He was kept up-to-date throughout the day."

"You mean you don't know whether he was in the Situation Room?"

"I don't remember what room he was in that night. It's a largely irrelevant fact, probably the gym shooting hoops, what difference does it make?" What difference does it make where the president was? What difference does it make what he's doing about deficit? What difference does it make on this IRS scandal? That's what Pfeiffer said, yeah, he's talking to the underlings. Well, to the extent that National Security Council is the underlings, but he wasn't talking to sec defense, wasn't talking to sec state. And then over on ABC, on Stephanopoulos' show, Dan Pfeiffer went over there, too, in his bid I guess to become Susan Rice Jr., appearing on all these shows. He vowed that the administration would act quickly to address the tax scandal.

And Dan Pfeiffer, who you just heard there, said to George Stephanopoulos, "I can't speak to the law here. The law is irrelevant. The activity was outrageous and inexcusable, and it was stopped and it needs to be fixed so we ensure that it never happens again." Folks, when the law is irrelevant, I'm here to tell you, anything goes. If the president thought that the IRS abuses were outrageous and inexcusable, he would have called and/or written every abused group and apologized. He called Sandra Fluke. Who else did he call? I can't remember, but he didn't call any of these groups, and it won't happen because these abuses were part of a plan to re-ensure his reelection.

I love it when these guys say, "I can't speak for the law here, but the activity was outrageous and inexcusable and it was stopped. It needs to be fixed and we ensure it never happens again. The president didn't have anything to do with it." The whole modus operandi, all this stuff going on within -- He called Jason Collins to congratulate him for being courageous in ditching his fiancee and coming out and announcing he's gay. Yep, so he called Jason Collins, "Attaboy, Jason." He called Sandra Fluke, "Attaboy, Sandra," but when it comes to these Tea Party groups, no way, no how, he's really outraged, really disturbed, it was inexcusable what happened, but Obama didn't call.